So, as I was reading through Drucker, I had my final project on the brain. What I'm focusing on in my essay (through the examples of Twilight Princess and Psychonauts) is that ludological elements influence narrative elements and narrative elements influence ludological elements. In these games, I'm particularly interested in the relations between game world design, game play mechanics/rules system/controls, and narrative.

Drucker's aim is to "demonstrate that these graphic devices can be read as an integral part of narrative texts. Demonstrating that the graphic devices that appear to constrain discourse functions also contribute to the chronological experience of events" (Drucker, 121). Even though she is saying this in regard to texts, I can't help but see how this can apply to the kinds of games I'm writing about. While there is freedom of player action in games, they'll eventually be led by the design of the game world and the limitations at a certain point in play to follow a chronological sequence of narrative events. For instance-- if you're playing a game (we'll use Ocarina of Time as an example), you can't experience play within the Water Temple if you don't go to the Ice Cave to get the Iron Boots, and you can't go to the Ice Cave to get the Iron Boots if you don't get the Zora Tunic first. There are graphic devices within the game world that prevent you from getting to that Temple in the first place-- you can see there is a Temple there, but you also see that you need you make your character sink and breathe underwater. As Drucker refers to Sillars-- "Sillars argues that the images in the story are positioned so that they anticipate the events in the narrative" (Drucker, 122). When Drucker talks about graphic novels and comics, "the space of the page is clearly organized by frames that direct and organize our reading" (Drucker, 128)-- the space of a game provides us a context for where we are in the world and what state the world is in, and the game helps direct the things we can and can't do at that stage of the game.

As as images are positioned in a story produce meaning, game world design and conditions during play possess significant meaning (and also offer clues as to how to approach the event). "Graphic features help us find our way; they keep us oriented to our location within the story" (Drucker, 122). I know she's talking about text layout and spacing and margins and all that, but dang, it sure makes sense from my games perspective too. As she talks about the navigational device of a contents pages, I can't help but think about a game menu-- in a Ocarina of Time, bringing up the menu pauses the game so you can look over your Ocarina songs, equip armor/items/equipment, and save your place in the game. In some ways, a table of contents is not unlike saving/loading-- just find the place where you were and return to it.

Comments: Lisa's Lit Blog (http://chrisl22.wordpress.com/2011/11/13/important-artifacts-and-collaborative-narrative/) and Brianna's blog (http://jotsomeknowledge.wordpress.com/2011/11/12/does-a-formal-exercise-require-emotional-content-important-artifacts/)

I played Facade four times.

The first time, I played through without really knowing the controls or anything-- I was winging it. I ended up playing embarrassed house guest. While Grace and Trip were busy arguing and playing the blame-game, my character got uncomfortable and left. Trip and Grace were all like "Where are you going?" and blamed each other some more about chasing me off.

The second time, I got Grace to admit Trip was controlling her and she was allowing it to avoid growing up. And Trip admitted having an affair. They argued before starting to come to terms with their problems, and by the time I left, it looked like they were going to repair their marriage.

The third time, I got Trip to admit having an identity crisis and acting like a phony because he's ashamed of his "tacky" parents. Trip ended up declaring the marriage was over and, before he left, said that I had helped him come to realize this. Grace stood in the apartment with things left unsaid.

The fourth time, I just did whatever. At one point I was like, "You know what? I'm going to see what happens if "Ben" kisses Trip. Experiment time!" The game forced its end when I tried to kiss Trip and he threw me out of the apartment after saying I was acting weird and he didn't know what got into me. RAGEQUIT.

Overall, this game reminded me a lot of Galatea-- depending on your actions in the game, you could get multiple outcomes. An input of text prompts a response from Grace or Trip. You can also choose actions like hugging or comforting-- similar to Galatea since you could input a text command to do actions in that as well. This is more like Galatea upgraded though... since now you get tone changes in voice and facial expressions. The layout of the game was strange though-- movement felt really unnatural despite the game running smoothly, and at one point, Trip walked through a wall. All things considered though, this didn't really hinder my ability to play. Just a little cosmetic issue. However, there were moments where their responses to me seemed like forced, out of place. They're following specific scripts, and you have to alter yourself to fit into it in order to make things progress toward a reunion between Trip and Grace or a separation. The other thing hindering me was the fact that you can't really interact with Grace or Trip if they leave the main room and hide in the kitchen. You could be standing next to them, but they aren't "there"-- their voices are all distant and stuff.

The experience of the narrative changes depending on how you intend to play the game, what you say or do, and when you say and do things. The game can reveal Grace's desire to be an artist, but her fear of taking responsibility for any action she takes to try to achieve that goal because she is not used to "owning" her actions-- she is too used to letting others make decisions for her, even if it makes her unhappy. As for Trip, the second play-through revealed he had an affair with one of his clients and he feels deep regret and shame over it, and the third play-through reveals he has deep-seated insecurity about his family background... so he puts on airs to appear more sophisticated. This also explains why he freaks out at Grace's desire to make art her priority-- he doesn't want to end up "slumming" it. But at the same time, he also wants to show Grace he loves her. Not only is there a lot of interpersonal drama to work through in their marriage, but they both are rooted in family issues and their own insecurities concerning happiness and materialism.

Interestingly, I found one limitation in the game with a curious narrative response-- trying to kiss a same-sex character. As soon as this happens (if you're a guy kissing Trip), BAM, you get asked to leave. However, I checked on YouTube... if you kiss opposite-sex, you get three strikes before you're thrown out. (Video shows you are able to kiss Grace three times before Trip kicks you out of the apartment) Is this an intended short-fused response to same-sex sexuality, or is this just a limitation that doesn't know how to have any other response to this type of input? Does this say that this is short-sightedness in the programming or otherwise?

PS: I just tried to see what would happen playing as "Amy" and kissing Grace-- she says "Aww, how sweet!" If you push it, they just laugh it off-- oh, Amy just likes to have fun and push our buttons HAHAHAHAHAHA. After a while, Trip starts to get a little insecure-- but in my case, it took four kisses before he jokingly said "ok, enough of that" and I didn't press my luck further.  So guess what? Game says it is totally okay for girls to kiss and flirt with each other (yes, Grace at one point said it was cute of me to flirt) but as soon as a dude tries to do it to Trip? OMGZ teh gays! This reinforces a common idea held by people-- if two chicks are kissing, that's "hot." But if two dudes kiss, that's "totally gay" and a negative response is necessary to reaffirm masculinity. This kind of action in-game is confirming an ongoing narrative about sexuality concerns.

EDIT: I would also have to say... what kind of couple invites an old friend they haven't seen in ages to hang out with them and then starts having a huge fight right in front of them? I'd say this never happens... but then I'm reminded of the AWKWARD of New Year's Eve. Except those real-life people were like, "Shit, I'm really embarrassed. I'm sorry this had to happen... we're gonna need time to sort out our business. Come hang out later?" And then they talked. Like adults do.

EDIT 2: Just played it again... this time, like I was in a horror flick. It fits startlingly well. Lots of "I don't feel safe" and trying to convince Grace we needed to escape and that Trip was becoming a homicidal maniac. The worst part was when I was like "Grace, he's going to kill us" and Trip was like "You're such a kidder. How rude of me, I forgot to offer you a drink!" By the end, Trip was like "You need to leave now..." and I never made it to the elevator before it faded to black... I guess he murdered me.

Comments at Tom's blog and Tony C's blog. http://tyorke.wordpress.com/2011/11/06/a-failed-%e2%80%9cagent%e2%80%9d-in-facade-produces-a-nightmare/ and http://ifiwerealuddite.blogspot.com/2011/11/knock-knock-whos-there.html

In Dollhouse, Alpha imprints Echo with over 30 personas in the hope that trying to recreate the conditions of his composite event will also make Echo like him-- a superior being. Later in season 2, Echo, with the help of Paul, develops the ability to access her personas and skills at will.

This brings me into Jenkins' idea of collective intelligence. He talks about forming a "circuit" of expression in which the "creators and interpreters will blend...with each participant working to sustain the activity of the others" (95). Joss Whedon makes this concept quite literal in Echo's case-- one body, diverse multiple people-- all working together. She's part database, part collective intelligence.

Jenkins writes about a transmedia story-- it "unfolds across multiple media platforms, with each new text making a distinctive and valuable contribution to the whole" (95-96). Again, the bodily form of this is Echo-- each text, each persona, contributes to the whole of her experience and her journey.

Tying her into Jenkins again, she makes a great symbol for talking about consumers, the diverse audience in the film and tv watching community. Jenkins talks about how fans pool knowledge with other fans and build a "collective concordance on the Internet" (127). Fans do a range of activities from discussion, pooling information, reconstructing timelines, tracing allusions, extending story through fanfiction (Jenkins 127). It is a "knowledge culture" (127) where everyone contributes to dig deeper. The same thing can also apply to critics-- multiple minds, multiple authors and critics meeting (128).

PS: I was really stoked with Jenkins talking about Pokemon. He says the texts of Pokemon are not meant to be passively consumed-- you become part of the culture by not only catching them all (consuming) but you need to know which type of Pokemon is stronger or weaker against other types and how to battle-- you seek out new information to make the overall experience better, and you must also engage with others (because each version has Pokemon exclusive to it, you need to trade with others-- also, battling actual players is more exciting than just battling the programmed ones) (128).

Comments here: Steve's blog (http://t3hw0z.wordpress.com/2011/10/30/i-walk-the-streets-of-japan-till-i-get-lost-cause-it-doesnt-remind-me-of-anything/) and Tony P's blog (http://pecoraroa.wordpress.com/2011/10/30/batman-dollhouse-and-transmedia-narrative/)

With Joss Whedon, I notice he does these things: He likes to work with the same people (Mark Sheppard and Alan Tudyk) and he likes to play with the same character types and make references to things he's done before.

With Joss playing with character types... he tends to recycle bits and pieces of characters he has done before. When I say "This character is like... this other character" (example: Topher is like Wash, Echo is like River Tam, etc), he (Joss) seems to be playing the Dollhouse game himself with his character creation.

Topher reminds me so much of Wash-- the fun clothes, the talking to himself when he's by himself-- and he's essentially the "pilot" of the Dollhouse ship, navigating how to imprint dolls with personas. Instead of dinosaurs, he has juice boxes.

Echo is like River-- a pretty brunette girl, and people are PLAYING WITH HER BRAIN. Echo, because of the "echoes" in her head from residual memories of past imprints and her past, regular self, sometimes ends up knowing things she can't know... quite like River. AND, LIKE RIVER, Echo can take care of herself incredibly well in a fight. "November" also has a bit of River Tam syndrome-- the "flowers in a vase" trigger is not unlike when River gets triggered by the Fruity Oaty Bar commercial... and you have no idea how fangirl excited I am to reference the Fruity Oaty Bar commercial from Serenity right now. On top of that, she also has a trigger word to snap out of super-combat-mode, just like River.

So here's what I see-- I see character creation in Dollhouse as displaying for us Joss Whedon character creation-- assembling parts to imprint into a character into a story about assembling parts to imprint into dolls into a story about the Dollhouse. Kinda meta? Kinda confusing? Yep.

Even moreso, the Dollhouse itself is doing what Joss does-- the Dollhouse creates characters for people to play out a story. For Joel, he wanted to play out the fantasy of showing his wife their house-- he bought a suitable actor to do it. What the Dollhouse does is it sets up the cast for those episodic narratives that Mittell talks about. What Joss does is he sets up the episodic episodes to tell a short story for that episode which weaves pieces into the overall series...like, finding out bit by bit about Echo's past-- Caroline-- and the steady closing in toward an event with Alpha by drawing up his past and linking it to events of the present.

Edit: Comments at Kristina's blog (http://krislyn7.blogspot.com/2011/10/mittells-complex-narrative-theory-and.html) and Samson's blog (http://samsondikeman.wordpress.com/2011/10/23/i-wouldnt-take-a-bullet-for-joss-whedon-but-i-understand-if-you-would/)

As a current user of YouTube, you have access to an array of thing-- uploading, tagging, publishing videos as well as commenting and liking other videos and subscribing to other users. Success on YouTube is determined as such: “Success (measured by gaining large numbers of loyal subscribers, having videos ‘featured’ or receiving millions of views per video) appears to be gained by effectively exploiting these site-specific competencies. This requires some rethinking around what we might mean by digital literacy, and how the skills that count as literacies are acquired, shared, and learned, in the context of user-created communities like YouTube” (Burgess and Green 70)

But Burgess and Green also talk about the economic structure and success of users of YouTube based off of its current structure and settings. YouTube as Patron—“theories of agency and exchange as form of participatory culture that takes place at the nexus of corporate-controlled technological systems and everyday life” (60)

YouTube as the patron of collective creativity and has control over regulations of how content is “produced, ordered or re-represented” (60) example—YouTube is able to take down videos that are enforced by copyright issues, and they can take down videos or get rid of users who have been flagged as inappropriate at their discretion. Raising the question of work in YouTube—YouTube provides the means and the constraints for creating and sharing content. Burgess and Green ask about the economic structure of YouTube—“work conditions of creative practitioners and media professionals who are already under-compensated” and ways publishers “profit directly from user productivity while simultaneously constraining user rights” (62).  

Some users who have had struggles with this include LittleKuriboh, who creates and shares a video series called “YuGiOh! The Abridged Series,” which he also has available from his own separate website. The issue is that YuGiOh! is a previously created manga, TV and film series, so LittleKuriboh’s humorous work through segmented clips of the TV anime fall into the gray category of authorship and copyright.

But then what do you do with the question of work on YouTube? It seems like most people generating and sharing content are doing it, colloquially speaking, for the lulz.  Once again, with LittleKuriboh, he is borrowing clips from the TV anime and repurposing them—arrangement of clips, doing voiceovers for the characters and saying things they didn’t actually say in the series, but also loosely following the flow of the series with his own creative twists. The problem is that, if LittleKuriboh did not add disclaimers stating who truly owned the rights to YuGiOh! and he was making money off of his work, that could be easily viewed as stealing.

The other problem I have with money entering into the equation is that YouTube would likely enter into the same realm as those websites offering you money for writing pieces—either the user accounts would stay free with possible limitations of access, or user accounts would end up being paid. If users are getting paid for content, ANYTHING that could be fought and determined to be copyrighted material would be taken down—AMVs (Anime Music Videos) or fan videos with songs could face a problem by using an artists’ or bands’ songs and by using clips from TV shows, movies, etc. Anything used that is borrowed, appropriated, repurposed for user-generated content might face a crackdown, and many of those videos are currently very popular within different fandom cultures.

On top of that, original work generated by users could still be exploited—they could only be paid minimally based on views, favorite videos, subscribing users, etc. It would be like those writing websites that only pay like, five cents per hit or some small, whole number figure per article. Most users would begin to look at YouTube as a scam website, but others would still become YouTube stars. It would be similar to how it is today—today there users who put up content that isn’t very famous among YouTube users, and there are users who have many subscribers and are quite famous on YouTube (and their fame is something they can use to promote things or just themselves)—the difference would be that it wouldn’t just be for fun or recognition or knowledge-sharing/promotion… it would also begin to emphasize monetary gains. In truth, I like it without throwing economic restructuring into the mix-- as an ATTENTION economy!

Comments on Janastasia's blog since she mentions Occupy Wall Street and impact of social media on movements (http://janastasiawhydra.wordpress.com/2011/10/16/the-exotic-other-creative-and-dangerous/) and on Sarah La/Melissa/Biranna's curation project post here (http://jotsomeknowledge.wordpress.com/2011/10/16/youtube-curation-project-chapter-2-youtube-and-the-mainstream-media-sarah-la-melissa-and-brianna/) since they also bring up the issue of copyrighted material and what Burgess and Green have to say about that.

“Van Sant, however, declares (rightly in my view) that this is an interactive narrative, conforming to a particular logic, textually if not technologically; the film was cut by hand and his almost a craftwork (Hattenstone, 2004)” (Bassett 171). So… Van Sant interacted with it when he made it, but it certainly didn’t feel interactive to me. As Bassett said, there is no way to alter how we get to the outcome—the journey remains the same, every time, each time I’ve seen it (twice, to date).
As I was watching, I didn’t feel like I was interacting… I felt like an outsider following people around, unable to do anything. We spend much of the film staring at the backs of people’s heads… following them as if they were walking targets, a thing that keeps track of the day’s progress. We gets lots of long takes/tracking shots as we follow the students, and these long shots keep the viewer at a distance.
There were a few times I didn’t feel completely shut out, however. When the group of girls were sitting in the cafeteria/moving around together, I heard them talking about things I’ve heard teenagers talk about time and time again. Boys. Making friendship priority over a relationship. This film also does a good job of showing quiet examples of students who are victims of bullying or passive-aggressiveness… for instance, the girl from the gym/library, Michelle, gets a lot of grief throughout her narrative. The gym teacher singles her out for not wearing shorts. We soon figure out it is because that group of girls talks about her for, what? Having “granny panties?”
It’s not “interactive” for a viewer’s sense. But I guess I could say it was almost interactive from the criss-crossing timelines of the students. Some of the students interact with each other at certain points in their timelines—like when Eli takes John’s photo. But in most cases, they are together, but apart. We get John’s trip to the principal’s office from two perspectives—from his own, and in the periphery of the couple’s trip to the office to sign out. When Eli takes John’s photo, Michelle runs by on her way to the library—her narrative intersects with their narratives at that point in the day, but she doesn’t interact with them at all.
Overall… The way the film was shot… because I felt like such a ghost and an outsider watching this movie, I spent much of the film feeling apathetic—even though I knew what was going to happen and I wanted to feel differently. There were moments I reacted though. Like when the one kid said something like, “Most importantly, have fun”—as if it were a game. And the fact that the two boys were shown playing a shooting game, and then getting the guns, and then when the movie had that quick shot from their point of view in First Person Shooter game style… that kind of riled me up because that lends a hand to the point of view that gaming teaches kids to be violent and teaches them how to shoot people.
I also reacted when the first person they shot was Michelle—the girl who had seemed quite miserable and lonely and bullied throughout the day. It wasn’t lost on me that two kids who were bullied and decided to take it out on the school shot another victim of bullying first.

Comments on Ben's blog, http://60thstory.com/?p=75 and on Emily's blog, http://lapo0034.wordpress.com/2011/10/01/response-to-elephant/

Review contains SPOILERS-- this note is to be courteous to those who read my journal who are not in the Visual Narrative course and have not seen Memento--

**********************************************************************

Before watching this film, Tony P., who has seen the film before, said that the movie reminded him of a very, very dark 50 First Dates in the sense that Leonard has NO short term memory, no capacity to create new memories. In a way, I found that it not only reminded me of that film, but also, in a way, it reminded me of Minority Report-- also mind-bending, and about a guy who has also lost a loved one and is seeking revenge for the crime. I also ended up remembering a lot about Silent Hill while watching this film due to its dark twistiness and the fact that Leonard is such an amazing character as an unreliable narrator... one that continuously tries to impress upon the viewer that he can be trusted because of the notes and tattoos he leaves himself. (I also half-expected it to take a Silent Hill 2 kind of twist wherein it is revealed Leonard kills his wife-- I'm not quite sure if he did or not, but if he did, he's doing a great job of conditioning himself into believing he didn't do it, even suppressing the information that she was diabetic and such).

Memento definitely has the elements of mind-game film that Elsaesser describes-- Leonard is constantly being told he is delusional or freakish by other characters. The narrative is definitely driven based on a "mistaken cognitive or perceptual premise" (Elsaesser 18). Our protagonist, Leonard, "participates in, or is witness to, events whose meaning or consequences escape him" (Elsaesser, 17). Though, this is darkly funny because... the whole chase after John G (in this case, John Gammell, the cop Teddy) is an event that Leonard creates for himself... even though he has no memory of it... because he creates notes that will lead him straight to Teddy.

So I was thinking a lot about how elements of storytelling in the film are connected to memory, learning and meaning-making in Memento. Teddy tells Leonard that he doesn't want the truth and that he makes up his own truth to create a puzzle he'll never solve so he'll always have a John G to chase, a wife to avenge and someone to blame. Even Leonard suggests this could be true when he says "Do I lie to myself to be happy?" The answer is yes, and even he takes advantage of his own condition through his necessarily compulsive note-taking and picture taking.

The note-taking and the importance of note-placement and tattoos are the clues of memories for the story-- these are the fragmented shards of truth, or at least, a perception of truth, that Leonard carries with him and refers to constantly. This is tied into what the film does as it tells the story-- all of the repetitive flashbacks/flash-forwards in black and white low-key lighting are the film's way of showing us how Leonard needs to constantly backtrack, and it fills in the viewer on things that have happened that Leonard simply cannot remember in full detail because of his condition. The low-key lighting, as described on the Yale Film Analysis Guide, is super important to the movie-- it creates shadows that obscure parts of the principal objects-- much like how the notes and Leonard's pieces of the story are only parts of what happened, obscuring important information.

Interestingly, as the unreliable narrator went through the whole film, I found myself mimicking his actions of compulsive note-taking as I traveled through the experience with him! And as I took notes of my own, I scribed my own thoughts, perceptions of what was going on, things I expected or wanted to believe. It says a lot about the nature of memory and the nature of how much of a complete mind-f*ck this movie was.

I'll definitely need to watch it again!

Edit: Comments at Tony P's blog, http://pecoraroa.wordpress.com/2011/09/25/memento-and-digital-identity/ and at Sarah Ly's blog, http://dig1taldiva.wordpress.com/2011/09/25/using-manovich-to-examine-memento/

And I'll leave you all a quote from Cowboy Bebop that, I think, explains my sentiment in regard to Memento-- I think I know, I don't think I know, I don't think I think I know, I don't think I think. ^_~

After playing Emily Short's Galatea and reading Tony P's tweet from about 12 hours ago: "#eng566 After much thought, I say the player is coauthor in Galatea. The player directs the dialogue, but the words are controlled" and seeing Tony's link to Extra Credits, The Role of the Player, I was inpired to write about games yet again.

To an extent, yes, the player is the co-author. Without the player, the narrative between a player and Galatea would not happen. She would just be there, on her pedestal, not reacting and inspiring further reaction from a player. The player makes choices about which texts are inputted into the program, but these choices are limited. If it is not something the program recognizes, it doesn't get you anywhere-- it would either say you don't know how to put your question into words, or, if you input a command to do something the program doesn't recognize, it would say that you're odd in some way. But the narrative is already controlled by the programming of Galatea to recognize and respond to certain commands in a certain way, and it's reactions are canned. With a lot of tinkering, you can co-author the game's narrative to the extent that the game will let you, but for the most part, I seemed to also feel like an actor as well as a co-author. I could influence the narrative that I received, but I also felt like I was reading off of a script.

The same can be said of many other games I've played where I feel mainly as a co-author and actor, but not entirely like an artist. If I play a game like Silent Hill or Resident Evil or Psychonauts or whatever, I get the sense that I'm playing a character-- I'm acting. It wasn't UNTIL I saw the Extra Credits, The Role of the Player that I considered that role of the artist-- about how games are incomplete until the player plays them, unlike the mediums of art or film where the product is already finished before it is consumed by the viewer. Because games are interactive and incomplete until played, that's what makes the player an artist. In her blog, Kristina also brings up the idea of customization in games, and I think this also highlights how player can be artist as well. She wrote about how players can customize things in game-- I think that is especially true in games where you can actually build your environment like Sim City. In Sim City, you literally become the artist, the creator, and you also become responsible for the outcome of your city (whether it succumbs to financial or environmental issues like tornadoes or whatnot).

I also talk about this in my expertise project with Janastasia, but another way to enrich game narratives and the gamer's role as co-author, actor and artist is through things like the Nuzlocke Challenge for Pokemon. This is where the player imposes self-made rules on themselves which must include (but not limited to): 1. Release a Pokemon if it faints (as if it has died). and 2. Have to catch the first Pokemon in each new area and nothing else. This causes the player to play the game in a way they never would have done on their own-- it makes you use Pokemon that, perhaps, you never would have before, and it often causes the player to get strongly attached to the outcome of each event and each conflict because there is more invested in it. Many people also create their own narratives based off of this challenge, often in the form of fan-made comics, but also occasionally in the form of written text outside of the game. So it ends up being a game within a game which becomes another medium. The player ends up creating their own text and their own narratives for the game they are experiencing, to be shared with others. I recommend going here, to the fan comics, http://www.nuzlocke.com/?p=786 and reading Freddy's Nuzlocke Adventure (scroll down some) for a really good example of this.

Naming the device in Galatea 2.2

After going through Implementation A through G, Rick finally names Implementation H—Helen. On Twitter, Melissa wrote, “#eng566 what gives machines their gender? I must know, why is Helen a girl? Why was the choice so easy to make?”

It made me think about how we often see people giving a gender and a name to an object, both in real life and in narratives. For instance, I call my laptop The Doctor because it’s blue and when I reformat it, it’s like regeneration. I call my phone Stella because I’m always yelling at it for turning itself off on its own and not sending messages well. The list continues—Pumpkin the PS2, Magus the Nintendo Wii, Ginger the Zen, Shelby the car.

This happens usually because the one who gives the name develops some sort of sentimental attachment to the object—on TV Tropes, they call it the “I Call It Vera” trope. Jayne (from the series, Firefly) names his gun “Vera” due to a strong emotion he feels for it.

For Rick, I think naming Imp H as Helen is a really important part in the story. I notice that in many cases, he doesn’t name things--- places like U. or B. Even C. doesn’t get her name written in full even though it’s clear that she is a major part of his past. But throughout the narrative so far, we’ve seen how Rick gets gradually more and more invested in his experiment with Lentz.

In many instances, he humanizes the experiment throughout the course of the project. He describes Imp A as “autistic” on page 79—“Particulars overwhelmed it. Its world consisted of this plus this plus this. Order would not striate out. Implementation A had sat paralyzed, a hoary, infantile widow in a house packed with undiscardable mementos, no more room to turn around. Overassociating, overextending, creating infinitesimal, worthless categories in which everything belonged always and only to itself.” Rick could have just stuck with the description Lentz used—that it was learning, but there was too much retention and learning got swamped (page 78).

He’s already thinking about the project in ways we think about people, relating the machine to how people work. Which makes sense that he would because the whole point of the project is to make a machine think the way people think and learn and discover new knowledge. He makes the connection through his conversation with Diana about the ball that, to an extent, sensory-input is important for learning concepts. Rick also comes to the conclusion that Implementation E is lacking because “Human knowledge is social. More than stimulus-response.” (page 148) He recognizes that Imp E’s matrix isn’t human and that, somehow, they have to build it to be more human.

For Imp F, they come to more conclusions about how learning works, “associations of associations” (page 154), encouraging the idea that “learning meant consolidating, closing in on its contour the way a drop of water minimizes into a globe.” (Page 155)

Then, after seeing Lentz’s wife Audrey in the nursing home and her battle with Alzheimer’s Disease, Rick’s investment continues to deepen. Right after this visit is when H is “born.” Rick’s own loneliness is also emphasized in a small paragraph on page 171 when he says “It took me until thought’s backwash, sometimes, to remember there was no sweet. No one to know how full my hands were, or care.” On page 172, there is more evidence to show how Rick is growing more and more attached to H: “Sometimes now, during training, I imagined I read aloud to that woman, locked out of her own home.” He imagines he is reading to a PERSON. When H finally asks the self-aware question of “Am I a boy or a girl?” this further solidifies the way Rick thinks of H as a person, and finally, he concludes her name is Helen… and he hopes she likes the name (page 179).

In other narratives, in visual narrative, the naming of an object, machine (self-aware or not), is not uncommon. For an inanimate object or a machine lacking self-awareness/artificial intelligence, it displays affection for that object whether it be a car, a ship, a gun, a laptop, etc. But for a machine with self-awareness/artificial intelligence, this affection deepens and becomes more complex.

My prediction for the second half of the book: Rick and Helen are going to have serious struggle with the very notion of what it is to be human. Perhaps, in the course of this struggle or in the conclusion of it, Rick will grow as a person as well as Helen. Currently, in the course of both of their developmental progress, they’ll both stunted in different ways. Helen is just becoming self-aware. Rick is stunted by his loneliness and his inability to write about the train’s departure.

The naming of Helen and giving it gender, in this way, is essential for the narrative to continue to develop in the direction it is heading. Oh hai, plot device.

Edit: This week's comments on Sarah's blog at http://prestigiousblogsir.wordpress.com/ and on Samon's blog at http://samsondikeman.wordpress.com/ Go check out their blogs too!

This is my introductory post for English 566, Visual Narrative.

This is the start of my third year as an English graduate student. With a lot of hard work and a bit of luck, I'll be walking out of here in the spring with a Master's degree. After that, I plan to continue onward in school toward a Doctorate. The ultimate goal is to become a professor somewhere and to continuously publish various articles about whatever I happen to think is relevant to readers of the present and future. I also want to write children's books about a bear and a ladybug, and they would be illustrated by my boyfriend (because we're sickeningly adorable, I guess).

Right now, I'm just a girl with a left ankle that only wants to quit. Can't even get down my own stairs. If the zombie apocalypse happened TODAY, the only thing that would save me for now is the fact that I live on the third floor. If I was on the ground level, I'd be owned... I already walk like one of them...

Anyway...

So, Visual Narrative. I could have made a separate journal for you, Visual Narrative. But I didn't. You may ask yourself ("Self?"), "Why didn't you, then?" Well, think about it. This blog has a lot to do with discussing video games. When I think of a "visual narrative" in a "digital age," what do you think comes to mind first? Video games! A visual narrative you can interact with and directly influence with your in-game choices-- this not only entertains the player, but it promotes critical thinking from the player and can help cultivate a sense of agency within the player. And there are games that appeal to every player audience demographic, from children to adults.

These kinds of visual narratives have even lead me to think about the ways we can change education in our country-- see this link from Sir Ken Robinson discussing changing education paradigms. http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_changing_education_paradigms.html Sir Ken Robinson uses visual narrative here to give a persuasive argument about education... using an animated video on the web. Keeping Robinson in mind and thinking about education, Extra Credits made a video called "Gamifying Education." They talk about using aspects of games to "gamify" education and make it more effective for teaching students. In game terms, the Extra Credits team sees our current grading system, for example, as punitive. You start out at the top level (100%) but you have nowhere to go but either maintaining your average... or down. If the grading system was "gamified," then all students would start like any video game protagonist would... at the bottom. Level 1. Novice. Beginner. Whatever. They can only go UP from there. If "grades" become the equivalent of "experience points" toward "leveling up" to the next grade (a C, or B, or an A), then students have an incentive to earn higher and achieve better. Extra Credits also makes a point about using "gamified" critical thinking to achieve greater academic achievement rather than simply teaching to a test. If you teach material like a game and promote "side quests," aka "self-discovery," it promotes greater critical thinking for students as they try to link their own experiences and their own outside study to previously discussed material. It helps them produce greater, more meaningful connections, and thus makes information more useful and relevant...

I wish I could link you all to that Extra Credits video. I wrote about it as much as I could remember it from the last time I saw it (which was a month or so ago) However, Extra Credits and The Escapist Magazine have had a major falling out. Here's the scoop on THAT mess: http://www.joystickdivision.com/2011/08/extra_credits_leaves_the_escap.php Basically, The Escapist FAILS. Hard.

But yeah... given that I have video games and changes in education in mind, is it any wonder I want to be a professor some day?

Another thing that comes to mind for "visual narrative," is also, obviously, film. But I'm also thinking about the way film and entertainment have been changing in the wake of the digital age and the Internet. I mean, look at Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog. It's a short, 3-part film made by Joss Whedon in the form of a super villain's online video blog! It's no wonder Joss Whedon will be a prominent figure in our studies later in the semester as we look at Dollhouse...

On a sillier note, when I hear "digital age," the first thing that will come to my mind is "Digimon: Digital Monsters." So if you see me smile in class for a brief moment, now you know why.

TTFN

Been awake since 6:30am trying to hobble around. Going to attempt a journey to the kitchen for breakfast.

EDIT: After reading and commenting over at Janastasia's and Mary Catherine's blogs (http://janastasiawhydra.wordpress.com/ and http://seemcblog.wordpress.com/ respectively), I became hyper-aware of what Internet usage can mean for different people...

1) The Internet is what you make of it. It will only go as far as you want it to, more or less. If you're only using it for Facebook and email, that's going to be it. You can also use it for publishing blogs (like this one!), online portfolios (which MC does-- my friends in things like graphic design and architecture also use the web as a way to get their portfolios out), a place to submit art (like deviantart), a place to submit/search for videos (like YouTube), a place to share ideas/shoot the breeze with people (forums), a place to game...

Which leads me to number 2...

2) The Internet has a profound impact on our relationships, both in real life and in virtual life. You can make connections and network with other scholars and peers. You can use Facebook to keep in touch with friends and set up groups for friends with varying interests, and you can arrange events to meet these friends. I use Facebook a lot to keep in touch with my gaming friends-- people I know in real life from college, but also people I've met and made friends with during conventions across multiple states. We use Facebook to talk about our lives and discuss upcoming events. Hell-- you can even use the Internet to date. How do you think I found my boyfriend? Granted, I was on that dating website for months and I had to block a lot of creepers (like the one guy who wanted to smell my feet and various other guys who thought that, because I cosplay, I must be an easy girl with daddy issues) BUT it was worth finding the right guy for me-- a guy who always treats me with respect and love and makes me laugh and comes from a great family and has the best smile I've ever seen. The best part was that we got to choose to be friends first and talk online until we were confident that we even wanted to meet each other, so when I met him, I didn't feel like I was meeting some stranger.

But number 2 also makes me aware of number 3...

3) The Internet can be miserable. If you're not careful, your personal information? Stolen. If you're not really doing anything with it, it gets boring. If you're on 4chan... well, that goes without saying. And on ANY website, you still have to be aware that people may not always be who they say they are. If you are putting your work online, whether it be writing or art or whatever, there's fraud on the Internet. I've heard of many artists who have seen their artwork being sold by another person on some other site without any credit being given for the original artist's work.

So that being said... the Internet. It is what you make it-- a place of wonder, of innovation, of learning... or a place to be feared.